Under a Dharma king or queen, my opinion on this topic is not necessary.

Your opinion on this topic is not necessary anyway,but at least in a democracy your opinion matters....

Talking about strawmen, the whole notion of the Cakravartin is lost at this point due to their construction. If you think the issue is their lack, or that there are better ideologies which your brain can cook up and which can better affect subversion to that which we are averse to, then I believe the whole point of the Cakravartin has been lost. If you truly understand what it means, you will not be worrying about their lack.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

As of today, anybody who wants a monarchy is in luck. I am available to fill the position of Supreme Monarch. That's right, if you want a king, then here I am. To activate this offer immediately, all you have to do is to believe that I am your king. That's all there is to it! And, for a limited time only, during this introductory period, no taxes will be collected although gifts of tribute symbolizing recognition and/or servitude will be accepted. To become a subject of this realm, simply reply with a statement proclaiming my glory. Remember, all replies must begin with, "Your Royal Highness..." or they will be rejected. Ten lucky applicants will be appointed to the nobility. Thank you, thank you all. You are loyal and true, and as your new king I shall do everything in my power to rule over you fairly or unfairly, at my discretion.

Refreshments will now be served in the dungeon....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

What are you talking about Kirt? Has the whole "Northern Ireland" deal just completely bypassed your reality?

Isn't this awfully simplistic thinking? There are thousands of people in every region who both support and oppose whatever government is in place, and Northern Ireland is an exceptionally good example of this. The only truth for all governments, villages, towns, cities, countries and empires is that they are marked by the three characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and not-self.

What really is the Buddhist position here? To support a system of government? To oppose it? Both? Neither? Or perhaps, the question simply does not apply.

Haven't you lived an uncountable number of lives prior to this one? Haven't you therefore likely engaged in the same kinds of war crimes countless times?

And aren't all those who engage in such crimes also our mothers in past lives?

Crime occurs constantly, and will never stop until all beings are liberated - it's just the nature of Samsara. Thus, being concerned with such matters leads only to discord and cannot be resolved, it is not right speech.

Whereas some ascetics and Brahmins remain addicted to such unedifying conversation* as about kings, robbers, ministers, armies, dangers, wars, food, drink, clothes, beds, garlands, perfumes, relatives, carriages, villages, towns and cities, countries, women, heroes, street- and well- gossip, talk of the departed, desultory chat, speculations about land and sea, talk about being and non-being, the ascetic Gotama refrains from such conversation.DN i.7-8*Tiracchana-katha: lit. 'animal-talk'. As animals walk parallel to the earth, so this kind of talk does not lead upward.Translation by Walshe

'Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.' (Edward Abbey)

'To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.'(Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)

'The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, ‘This is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: ‘Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'' (Rousseau)

What are you talking about Kirt? Has the whole "Northern Ireland" deal just completely bypassed your reality?

Isn't this awfully simplistic thinking? There are thousands of people in every region who both support and oppose whatever government is in place, and Northern Ireland is an exceptionally good example of this. The only truth for all governments, villages, towns, cities, countries and empires is that they are marked by the three characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and not-self.

What really is the Buddhist position here? To support a system of government? To oppose it? Both? Neither? Or perhaps, the question simply does not apply.

Simplisitc or simple? Kirt commented regarding Cromwell and I brought him up to date.

What would be the Buddhist position on violently imposed monarchies? I guess that depends on which Buddhist you ask. This Buddhist (me) says that violent imposed political rule is a no-no. I can find relevant quotes to back my position. Another will say... ad nauseum.

While it is true that samsara cannot be perfect, it is also true that (albeit temporarily) it can be (politically/socially/economically) organised a hell of a lot better than what it is right now. Now, all I have to do is to convince those that greedily cling to wealth and power to share some of it (not all) with those (the overwhelming, absolute, majority of people in the world) that do not.

Now what does Buddhism have to say about clinging and attachment to impermanent phenomena?

gregkavarnos wrote:Simplisitc or simple? Kirt commented regarding Cromwell and I brought him up to date.

[1.] What would be the Buddhist position on violently imposed monarchies? I guess that depends on which Buddhist you ask. This Buddhist (me) says that violent imposed political rule is a no-no. I can find relevant quotes to back my position. Another will say... ad nauseum.

[2.] While it is true that samsara cannot be perfect, it is also true that (albeit temporarily) it can be (politically/socially/economically) organised a hell of a lot better than what it is right now. Now, all I have to do is to convince those that greedily cling to wealth and power to share some of it (not all) with those (the overwhelming, absolute, majority of people in the world) that do not.

Now what does Buddhism have to say about clinging and attachment to impermanent phenomena?

1. The Buddha taught individuals how to obtain happiness in this life, the next life, and how to obtain cessation. In the present moment, individuals are instructed to act with wholesome intention. Obviously this means unwholesome actions in the present are not conducive to a good destination, but I think that treating "states" as actual objects, rather than ideas, and not focusing on the individuals who make decisions and how they can act wholesomely or unwholesomely is somewhat unskillful. But the question of historical unwholesome actions thereof seems irrelevant to me in assessing how one can choose to act in the present (so long as the action is not still taking place). This approach seems to make sense to me, but I would be interested to hear how you would approach it differently.

2.A lot of people have stuff and we don't understand why. A lot of people do not and we don't understand why. We cannot comprehend fully the law of karma and can control human lives such that people get just what they deserve - this occurs by itself. We can encourage people to give, and that is the Buddhist approach, but to actively reorganise the world would be offensive to the security of property and order of society. Moreover, it would deprive those who are wealthy of that opportunity to generate good karma. As far as I can discern, when the Buddha instructs kings to provide wealth and jobs such that people are no longer poor, he is talking about the wealth of those kings, not the wealth which a modern government takes forcefully and redistributes. As for clinging to wealth, this seems like a bit of a mischaracterisation of how the wealthy are more likely to run their financial affairs. Certainly being stingy is bad for the poor and doesn't keep capital flowing in the market, but it also has automatic bad practical karmic repercussions for the wealthy owner of the capital, since it isn't growing if they're just "clinging" to it as you say, but rather would naturally diminish. "Further, householder, with the wealth thus gained the noble disciple makes provisions against the losses that might arise on account of fire and floods, kings and bandits and unloved heirs; he makes himself secure against them. This is the second case of wealth gone to good use." (AN 4:61; II 65-68) I am interested in what quotes you have which would give such wealth to kings, and proclaim it to be good use for kings to distribute it rather than the laws of nature, economics and karma (all causes and conditions and naturally non-forceful).

Ben Yuan wrote:1. The Buddha taught individuals how to obtain happiness in this life, the next life, and how to obtain cessation. In the present moment, individuals are instructed to act with wholesome intention. Obviously this means unwholesome actions in the present are not conducive to a good destination, but I think that treating "states" as actual objects, rather than ideas, and not focusing on the individuals who make decisions and how they can act wholesomely or unwholesomely is somewhat unskillful. But the question of historical unwholesome actions thereof seems irrelevant to me in assessing how one can choose to act in the present (so long as the action is not still taking place). This approach seems to make sense to me, but I would be interested to hear how you would approach it differently.

I have no ides how this relates to what I said.

2.A lot of people have stuff and we don't understand why. A lot of people do not and we don't understand why. We cannot comprehend fully the law of karma and can control human lives such that people get just what they deserve - this occurs by itself. We can encourage people to give, and that is the Buddhist approach, but to actively reorganise the world would be offensive to the security of property and order of society. Moreover, it would deprive those who are wealthy of that opportunity to generate good karma. As far as I can discern, when the Buddha instructs kings to provide wealth and jobs such that people are no longer poor, he is talking about the wealth of those kings, not the wealth which a modern government takes forcefully and redistributes. As for clinging to wealth, this seems like a bit of a mischaracterisation of how the wealthy are more likely to run their financial affairs. Certainly being stingy is bad for the poor and doesn't keep capital flowing in the market, but it also has automatic bad practical karmic repercussions for the wealthy owner of the capital, since it isn't growing if they're just "clinging" to it as you say, but rather would naturally diminish. "Further, householder, with the wealth thus gained the noble disciple makes provisions against the losses that might arise on account of fire and floods, kings and bandits and unloved heirs; he makes himself secure against them. This is the second case of wealth gone to good use." (AN 4:61; II 65-68) I am interested in what quotes you have which would give such wealth to kings, and proclaim it to be good use for kings to distribute it rather than the laws of nature, economics and karma (all causes and conditions and naturally non-forceful).

A "Buddhist" excuse for not redistributing wealth. Basically a "Buddhist" excuse for people to act based on greed, avarice, and desire. Actually sounds more like a Brahmanic account, like the excuses used to justify the existence of the caste system.

Nilasarasvati wrote:I am stunned by so much of this thread; I would have thought it was totally impossible for a Buddhist (who knows a little history) to believe monarchies and feudal systems of governance could be anything but patriarchal warlordism birthed, maintained, and characterized by violence, oppression, and ethnic genocide. Always. Every time. Every example in history. You can tout your "great man" theories and talk about "enlightened" rulers...but I'm just baffled. Are we in the Victorian era?

Most appalling is the ignorance that systems aren't totally characterized by genocide. By Racism with a capital R.

As people who categorically believe that human potential is limited only to omniscience and perfection, why would you settle for anything less than a perfect form of governance?

Which cannot possibly be representative democracy, either; its a hellhole of corruption, violence and mass exploitation.

In my arrogant opinion, that perfect form of governance isn't that hard to Imagine. "It's easy if you try."(It is ironically really Daoist. )Read Ursula K. LeGuin for details.